"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

I am curious what this means now...what effect will this have on religion? Will it have any at all?

Why would it have any effect on "religion?" (BTW, Orthodoxy is not even a "religion...")

Ristos, could you explain shortly, why do you have this peculiar interest to the topic of biological evolution, as if it's something that can decide on your faith? I am a university biology teacher with ~13 years of experience in teaching various biological disciplines, Introductory Biology among them. What's so special about evolution? The theory of biological evolution is a unifying theme of all biology, kind of like the theory of electromagnetism is one of the major unifying themes in physics. It is a valid scientific theory, which stands on a colossal number of factual observations (of which fossils, BTW, are not even the most important). If yet another fossil is found, and that helps biologists (paleontologists, anthropologists, primatologists etc.) to develop a better idea about how hominids evolved - great. If not - no big deal. Why would one look at these routine findings of specialists as if they have some sort of magic significance (like, "I still believe in God because these evolutionists haven't yet found their "missing link" yet")?

If there comes a day when I will say, "I no longer believe in God because science disproved His existence" - I'll spit myself in the face.

I am curious what this means now...what effect will this have on religion? Will it have any at all?

Why would it have any effect on "religion?" (BTW, Orthodoxy is not even a "religion...")

Ristos, could you explain shortly, why do you have this peculiar interest to the topic of biological evolution, as if it's something that can decide on your faith? I am a university biology teacher with ~13 years of experience in teaching various biological disciplines, Introductory Biology among them. What's so special about evolution? The theory of biological evolution is a unifying theme of all biology, kind of like the theory of electromagnetism is one of the major unifying themes in physics. It is a valid scientific theory, which stands on a colossal number of factual observations (of which fossils, BTW, are not even the most important). If yet another fossil is found, and that helps biologists (paleontologists, anthropologists, primatologists etc.) to develop a better idea about how hominids evolved - great. If not - no big deal. Why would one look at these routine findings of specialists as if they have some sort of magic significance (like, "I still believe in God because these evolutionists haven't yet found their "missing link" yet")?

If there comes a day when I will say, "I no longer believe in God because science disproved His existence" - I'll spit myself in the face.

I'm not, I posted it to see others thoughts, plus if you had read some of the posts in the article, people are making remarks such as "this would be the nail in the coffin for religion" and so on. I was curious on what others thought.

I am curious what this means now...what effect will this have on religion? Will it have any at all?

Why would it have any effect on "religion?" (BTW, Orthodoxy is not even a "religion...")

Ristos, could you explain shortly, why do you have this peculiar interest to the topic of biological evolution, as if it's something that can decide on your faith? I am a university biology teacher with ~13 years of experience in teaching various biological disciplines, Introductory Biology among them. What's so special about evolution? The theory of biological evolution is a unifying theme of all biology, kind of like the theory of electromagnetism is one of the major unifying themes in physics. It is a valid scientific theory, which stands on a colossal number of factual observations (of which fossils, BTW, are not even the most important). If yet another fossil is found, and that helps biologists (paleontologists, anthropologists, primatologists etc.) to develop a better idea about how hominids evolved - great. If not - no big deal. Why would one look at these routine findings of specialists as if they have some sort of magic significance (like, "I still believe in God because these evolutionists haven't yet found their "missing link" yet")?

If there comes a day when I will say, "I no longer believe in God because science disproved His existence" - I'll spit myself in the face.

I'm not, I posted it to see others thoughts, plus if you had read some of the posts in the article, people are making remarks such as "this would be the nail in the coffin for religion" and so on. I was curious on what others thought.

IMHO, only stupid people can say a thing like this. Stay away from them, dear friend!

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

I didn't know that the lemur-monkey transition had any profound theological implications.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

I was wondering after reading about this/looking at pics, how does this prove evolution? This doesn't look like a "transition" fossil at all. It looks like a fully formed animal skeleton. I fail to see the missing link here. Could those, perhaps Heorhij, with more knowledge help me with this?

The accute embassment of Mr. Dawkins can come from Ben's interview with him following up on the idea of Panspermia (one of the most hilarious parts of the movie on the origins of life "Aliens did it," an idea that Mr. Stein correctly identifies with Dr. Crick, whom he correctly identifies as the discoverer of DNA. Btw, Dr. Crick accepted the position at Churchcill College because it didn't have a chapel, and resigned in protest when the College accepted the donation of one. So much for tolerance). Mr. Dawkins admits that life could have a designer, but admanently denies it could be God. How objective and undogmatic.

Quote

Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle.

Sir David Attenborough said Darwin "would have been thrilled" to have seen the fossil - and says it tells us who we are and

No. Genesis 1:26-27, 2:18-24, 5:1-3, I Corinthians 6:19-20, 8:11, II Corinthians 6:16 etc...etc...etc... tells you we are, and who we should be.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I was wondering after reading about this/looking at pics, how does this prove evolution? This doesn't look like a "transition" fossil at all. It looks like a fully formed animal skeleton. I fail to see the missing link here. Could those, perhaps Heorhij, with more knowledge help me with this?

Fossils generally do not "prove" anything. Darwin postulated that life "diversifies" because there exist certain natural processes like "survival of the fittest," which act upon a pre-existing variation in life forms. For example, you see a population of butterflies that are "naturally" varying in colors; if it is more difficult for a predator to catch a butterfly with darker wings, there will be an expansion of the dark-colored variety of butterflies and at certain conditions (isolation) they may begin to reproduce only within themselves, so we will have a new species of butterflies. Same thing in hominids: some forms of hominids with "naturally" bigger skull and brain expanded (not, BTW, replacing other forms that remained alive and well), and eventually formed a new species, Homo sapiens (us, humans). This paradigm, if you will, of Charles Darwin remains the fully accepted one, simply because it fits a whole lot of evidence (especially studies in population genetics, and more recently molecular biology). It has never been "DISproved" (or "falsified"). In science, generally, hypotheses, theories, paradigms remain in their place until, or unless, they are DISproved.

Fossils generally do not "prove" anything. Darwin postulated that life "diversifies" because there exist certain natural processes like "survival of the fittest," which act upon a pre-existing variation in life forms. For example, you see a population of butterflies that are "naturally" varying in colors; if it is more difficult for a predator to catch a butterfly with darker wings, there will be an expansion of the dark-colored variety of butterflies and at certain conditions (isolation) they may begin to reproduce only within themselves, so we will have a new species of butterflies. Same thing in hominids: some forms of hominids with "naturally" bigger skull and brain expanded (not, BTW, replacing other forms that remained alive and well), and eventually formed a new species, Homo sapiens (us, humans). This paradigm, if you will, of Charles Darwin remains the fully accepted one, simply because it fits a whole lot of evidence (especially studies in population genetics, and more recently molecular biology). It has never been "DISproved" (or "falsified"). In science, generally, hypotheses, theories, paradigms remain in their place until, or unless, they are DISproved.

So, what you are saying is that this fossil proves nothing at all? I am all on board for microevolution, which you spoke of above. But this fossil LOOKS to be a fully formed, animal. NOT transitional as the article says that it is. Am I wrong?

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Fossils generally do not "prove" anything. Darwin postulated that life "diversifies" because there exist certain natural processes like "survival of the fittest," which act upon a pre-existing variation in life forms. For example, you see a population of butterflies that are "naturally" varying in colors; if it is more difficult for a predator to catch a butterfly with darker wings, there will be an expansion of the dark-colored variety of butterflies and at certain conditions (isolation) they may begin to reproduce only within themselves, so we will have a new species of butterflies. Same thing in hominids: some forms of hominids with "naturally" bigger skull and brain expanded (not, BTW, replacing other forms that remained alive and well), and eventually formed a new species, Homo sapiens (us, humans). This paradigm, if you will, of Charles Darwin remains the fully accepted one, simply because it fits a whole lot of evidence (especially studies in population genetics, and more recently molecular biology). It has never been "DISproved" (or "falsified"). In science, generally, hypotheses, theories, paradigms remain in their place until, or unless, they are DISproved.

So, what you are saying is that this fossil proves nothing at all? I am all on board for microevolution, which you spoke of above. But this fossil LOOKS to be a fully formed, animal. NOT transitional as the article says that it is. Am I wrong?

An individual fossil never proves or disproves anything. I am afraid journalists are just making too big of a deal about it.

An individual fossil never proves or disproves anything. I am afraid journalists are just making too big of a deal about it.

That is what I thought. So this is nothing more than propaganda. Thank you.

Well, it may be an important observation for the specialists in this narrow field of anthropology or paleontology. But to say that this is a "final proof of evolution" is simply silly, absolutely un-professional, unscientific. It's like saying that yesterday, I obtained the final proof that atoms and molecules exist because I observed this particular chemical reaction.

Well, it may be an important observation for the specialists in this narrow field of anthropology or paleontology. But to say that this is a "final proof of evolution" is simply silly, absolutely un-professional, unscientific. It's like saying that yesterday, I obtained the final proof that atoms and molecules exist because I observed this particular chemical reaction.

I agree, but how does this info blow up like this? Is it simply because the media wants people to pay attention, or is it from the scientific community, trying to prove a point? This is what I am not so sure of, to be honest.

An individual fossil never proves or disproves anything. I am afraid journalists are just making too big of a deal about it.

That is what I thought. So this is nothing more than propaganda. Thank you.

Its propaganda insofar as it doesn't actually affect the theory, since it only supports what has already been observed. However, it doesn't mean that there's any less support for the theory than there was before; the essence of the true Theory of Evolution (not the propagandized version of it) is still supported by the preponderance of scientific evidence.

Building this up as "final proof for Darwin" is really just playing on the supposed dichotomy between religion (specifically Christianity) and the T.o.E., which in reality likely doesn't exist for most Christians in the world. It's more social agenda than science...

I see. This is what bothers me. Quit acting like your THEORY is FACT. This is what IS happening with these types of stories. Just be truthful. You have a theory about how the world works. Fine. Just tell it like it is, though. It is not the Law of Evolution. Often, though, this is how it is presented.

But you see, that's what non-scientists tend to say to scientists, often not realizing that theories in science necessarily have factual foundation. Yes, the theory of biological evolution is a theory. But so is, for example, the theory of electromagnetism! Why then are we, biologists, the favorite scapegoats? Let's say, we aren't at all convinced, you guys (Faraday, Maxwell, Tesla et al.) that your so-called "electromagnetic field" is a fact. Right, when I turn my electric bulb on, it shines and I can see things in my room. But that's an individual observation, it does not prove anything! So, let's stop teaching electromagnetism in schools, it's just a theory... or, for that matter, "atomomolecularism," or "chemicalbondism," or other...

This is what IS happening with these types of stories. Just be truthful. You have a theory about how the world works. Fine. Just tell it like it is, though. It is not the Law of Evolution. Often, though, this is how it is presented.

Well, evolution (if defined as a change in the genetic makeup of populations) is a fact, it does occur, it can be directly observed and measured, just like the electric current in your wires. The theory of biological evolution tries to explain how evolution works, how it changes life, what are its possible directions, rates, etc. (just like the theory of electromagnetism explains how electricity works).

But you see, that's what non-scientists tend to say to scientists, often not realizing that theories in science necessarily have factual foundation. Yes, the theory of biological evolution is a theory. But so is, for example, the theory of electromagnetism! Why then are we, biologists, the favorite scapegoats? Let's say, we aren't at all convinced, you guys (Faraday, Maxwell, Tesla et al.) that your so-called "electromagnetic field" is a fact. Right, when I turn my electric bulb on, it shines and I can see things in my room. But that's an individual observation, it does not prove anything! So, let's stop teaching electromagnetism in schools, it's just a theory... or, for that matter, "atomomolecularism," or "chemicalbondism," or other...

This is what IS happening with these types of stories. Just be truthful. You have a theory about how the world works. Fine. Just tell it like it is, though. It is not the Law of Evolution. Often, though, this is how it is presented.

Well, evolution (if defined as a change in the genetic makeup of populations) is a fact, it does occur, it can be directly observed and measured, just like the electric current in your wires. The theory of biological evolution tries to explain how evolution works, how it changes life, what are its possible directions, rates, etc. (just like the theory of electromagnetism explains how electricity works).

You make very good points. I just wish that there was more down to earth material about this. Yes, there is evidence in support, BUT it is still just a theory.

Just curious, but what is the problem with evolution? Since I was in high school I had no problem reconciling the concept of Macroevolution with my faith.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Just curious, but what is the problem with evolution? Since I was in high school I had no problem reconciling the concept of Macroevolution with my faith.

I have no problem with evolution whatsoever. It is fine in my opinion. I just am tired of the presentation of such as FACT. I think that it is a little dishonest. That is all.

When such an incredible perponderance of evidence seems to support the theory of evolution, wouldn't that mean that it pretty much qualifies as fact?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Fossils generally do not "prove" anything. Darwin postulated that life "diversifies" because there exist certain natural processes like "survival of the fittest," which act upon a pre-existing variation in life forms. For example, you see a population of butterflies that are "naturally" varying in colors; if it is more difficult for a predator to catch a butterfly with darker wings, there will be an expansion of the dark-colored variety of butterflies and at certain conditions (isolation) they may begin to reproduce only within themselves, so we will have a new species of butterflies. Same thing in hominids: some forms of hominids with "naturally" bigger skull and brain expanded (not, BTW, replacing other forms that remained alive and well), and eventually formed a new species, Homo sapiens (us, humans). This paradigm, if you will, of Charles Darwin remains the fully accepted one, simply because it fits a whole lot of evidence (especially studies in population genetics, and more recently molecular biology). It has never been "DISproved" (or "falsified"). In science, generally, hypotheses, theories, paradigms remain in their place until, or unless, they are DISproved.

So, what you are saying is that this fossil proves nothing at all? I am all on board for microevolution, which you spoke of above. But this fossil LOOKS to be a fully formed, animal. NOT transitional as the article says that it is. Am I wrong?

Transitional organisms are "fully formed". A transitional organism simply has some traits found among one group of organisms, and other traits found among another group of organisms. Archaeopteryx is a "transitional organism" in the sense that it has teeth (like reptiles) and feathers (like birds). And, Archaeopteryx is also a "fully formed" organism that ate, flew, breathed, mated, and died.

In fact, one could argue that many organisms are "transitional", in one way or another. Apes could be seen as "transitional" between monkeys and humans. Amphibians, "transitional" between fish and reptiles. Reptiles, "transitional" between amphibians and mammals. Homo sapiens might also be "transitional", if we happen to survive without self-destructing. (I should point out that the future evolution of our species into another species is not necessarily incompatible with the resurrection of the body.)

« Last Edit: May 20, 2009, 12:39:22 PM by Jetavan »

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Well, that's what I hear pretty much all the time on this site - that Orthodoxy is a way of life, not just some system of beliefs. Prof. John Romanides, a modern theologian, even said somthing like, "religion is a neurological disease, and Orthodoxy is a cure."

Well, that's what I hear pretty much all the time on this site - that Orthodoxy is a way of life, not just some system of beliefs. Prof. John Romanides, a modern theologian, even said somthing like, "religion is a neurological disease, and Orthodoxy is a cure."

The original meaning of "religion" had to do with conduct. Due to Protestant influence, though, "religion" came to be limited primarily to belief.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Would I be correct in saying that a lot of non-scientific people, especially the anti-Evolution creationists, confuse the Theory of Evolution with Evolutionary Theory? Where the Theory of Evolution is an accepted, established scientific fact and not merely a theory, there are Evolutionary Theories suggested to explain how evolution works.

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Would I be correct in saying that a lot of non-scientific people, especially the anti-Evolution creationists, confuse the Theory of Evolution with Evolutionary Theory? Where the Theory of Evolution is an accepted, established scientific fact and not merely a theory, there are Evolutionary Theories suggested to explain how evolution works.

I am not sure. There is a valid scientific theory, known as the theory of biological evolution (TBE). It is based on the FACT that life "evolves" (meaning, genes are represented in populations in various allelic forms, and the prevalence, or share of certain allelic varieties changes over time). From this really firmly established fact, TBE makes assumptions that the above genetic change, or evolution, is responsible for appearance of new taxonomic forms (species, genera, etc.). TBE also explores the role of such natural forces as mutation, natiral selection, genetic drift, gene frow, etc., their relative contribution into the diversification of life forms.

Now, there also exist a certain "philosophy" of "evolutionism," which states something that because we know that life evolves, there is no place for anything supernatural in the world and in the life of a human being or the human race. But this, of course, has nothing to do whatsoever with any scientific theories, because the latter are principally not philosophy.

Well, that's what I hear pretty much all the time on this site - that Orthodoxy is a way of life, not just some system of beliefs. Prof. John Romanides, a modern theologian, even said somthing like, "religion is a neurological disease, and Orthodoxy is a cure."

Well, there are other religions that could say the same thing about themselves - Judaism, Islam, Scientology, are all "ways of life"; yet there's no doubt they are "systems of belief" (aka "religions") as well.

But I've derailed the topic enough, sorry.

Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

I am all on board for microevolution, which you spoke of above. But this fossil LOOKS to be a fully formed, animal. NOT transitional as the article says that it is. Am I wrong?

No given organism is transitional, in the sense that it is somehow changing from one type of organism into another. It is, exactly as you say, a fully-formed organism. But if evolution is true, then any given organism will display some (but not all) of the characteristics of those from which it descended. And the species that follow will display some, but not all, of its characteristics. And that makes the organism's fossil transitional, as it represents an instantaneous image of a gradual, continuous process -- the process of transitioning from species A to species C. Ida shows some characteristics of lemurs and some characteristics of monkeys, so she is a textbook transitional fossil.

Quote from: PoorFoolNicholas

So, what you are saying is that this fossil proves nothing at all?

No single observation ever proves anything in science. Rather, science is all about asking what explanation best fits all known observations. Ida adds to that list. Had none of the fossils found in the last 150 years appeared to be transitional, evolution as a theory would have been dealt a serious blow. Instead, each additional discovery tends to support the overall theory. Indeed, evolutionary theory virtually demands that we continue to find more of these.